Paramount Wants ‘Star Trek 3′ To Feel Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’
Options
1CK1S
Members Posts: 27,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
Recently, a director shortlist for Star Trek 3 was revealed – a film desperately in need of a director after Robert Orci’s departure if Paramount is to have any hope of releasing it in time for the franchise’s 50th anniversary.
Included on the list are Rupert Wyatt, Daniel Espinosa, Justin Lin, Morten Tyldum, and Duncan Jones (though Jones has since denied any involvement). Wyatt is apparently the front runner, and the director has certainly proven he’s capable with his recent work on Rise of the Planet of the Apes and the upcoming The Gambler. But with no director officially tapped, the search for who will helm Star Trek 3 continues.
Beyond that, there’s also dispute over the state of Star Trek 3‘s script, which was written by Orci along with screenwriters Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne. Rumors suggested Paramount and Orci had a falling out over the script – which was said to include time travel (again) and an appearance from William Shatner’s Kirk. Then Orci explained that that wasn’t the case, saying there was no time travel in the movie, he was still a producer, and would remain “very involved.”
Either way, it remains unclear exactly what’s planned for the next installment in Star Trek‘s latest film series, but Badass Digest‘s Devin Faraci claims that Paramount wants Stark Trek 3 to be more like Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy, and that this was a point of contention between Paramount and Orci.
Paramount wanting Trek 3 to have a little of Guardians‘ uniqueness isn’t entirely unexpected – the film was, after all, a hugely successful sci-fi-action flick set predominately in outer space with an edginess to it that even J.J. Abram’s first Star Trek couldn’t achieve.
Is it true? Does Paramount want Trek 3 to borrow from Guardians? There’s no doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness was a bit underwhelming at the box office – though it was still a hit – and the very serious take on the property left a bad taste in a lot of fans’ mouths. Some would argue that Star Trek is better when it isn’t taking itself too seriously, and when it features the crew’s camaraderie just as much as whatever obstacles they face.
Guardians managed to blend offbeat comedy with action well, and had a cast of characters who all played off each other as a believable group of misfits. Star Trek 3 would do well to take note and infuse itself with some of this much needed levity and stronger development of its central characters’ relationships. (Though Paramount’s request that Keenser be more like Rocket Raccoon and Groot seems a little misguided.)
And who knows, if they really want to take a page out of Guardians playbook, maybe we’ll even see the Enterprise crew travel to the prison planet of Rura Penthe à la Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Would you like to see a Star Trek 3 that borrows from Guardians of the Galaxy? Is Rupert Wyatt the director helm that sort of film? Let us hear what you think comments below!
Star Trek 3 is expected to release in theaters in 2016; we’ll let you know if that changes.
Comments
-
"Into Darkness" was perfect. I actually like the serious tone, it's setups the high stakes that the 5 year journey the crew begins to take at the end of the movie impactful. And Khan is still out there.
No need to copy Guardians of the Galaxy. -
Zoe needs to find a way to be in Star Wars, then she'll be queen of the space epic.
-
Into the Darkness could've been better to me I don't know didn't like it that much. They should've had Khan do more evil stuff in the film earlier instead of just the end.
-
Into the darkness was dope tho. First one as well. The formula working. Hopefully they don't play themselves and ? up a good thing.
I don't even understand the need to tap into guardians when star trek, TNG, and ds9, and the 90's films were the ? . -
guardians of the galaxy is to comedic startrek shouldn't take that route it already has its own brand of humor. kirk and peter quill are similar enough as it is. it seems to me that hollywood has gotten lazy and doesn't like originality.
-
They need to add more of the exploring and intelligence to the series like the next generation and the other series instead of more comedy.
-
They don't need to go that route.
What's the end for the next movie, a final battle dance off between Kirk and Khan. Smh -
Into the Darkness could've been better to me I don't know didn't like it that much. They should've had Khan do more evil stuff in the film earlier instead of just the end.
Khan gunstar heroing all the klingons on the rouge planet
Khan crushed robocops brain
Stomped on homegirls ankle and broke the bone
Did a non GI Joe fire at your whole fleet bodies floating in space firing squad
Beats up Kirk, robocops crew, bowl cut spock,-wait hold on
He also rapid fired (while inside a rouge ship pike) and most of the people in that office
I swear Khan was killing every 10 minutes -
Into the Darkness could've been better to me I don't know didn't like it that much. They should've had Khan do more evil stuff in the film earlier instead of just the end.
yea i didnt like it tht much either, i liked the first one becos i had low expectations but then for the second one i had higher expectations and it didnt live up. wasnt bad tho
-
Star Trek (2009)
Budget: 150 million
Box Office: 385.7 million
Star Trek: Into the Darkness (2013)
Budget: 185 million
Box Office: 467.3 million
Both well received with positive reviews but they want to switch it up for the third? It's not broke, why fix it?
They already rebuilt a following, it might do near 600 million on the next time around. Which isn't Guardians money but still Hollywood do your best to not be so stupidly Hollywood.
